What some people call 'keeping cyclists to the side of the road out of motorist's way', I call 'not unreasonably obstructing other road users', like it says in the road rules (remember them?). I ride to the side of car traffic if there's room, bikelane or not, not because I feel inferior or anything, but simply because it's common courtesy.

Courtesy is desirable, as I have always written. For which, Bekologist has accused me of being a curb hugger. I doubt that he will say the same about your statement, although I think your statement is stronger than that for which Bekologist accused me. However, being courteous to drivers who can go faster also is limited by the rules of the road when the circumstances indicate that they should either yield to you as a right or, when your are intending to make a left turn, it is courteous of them to modify their speed to allow you to do so. I am sure, Allister, that you do not always ride at the edge of the road, although your statement so indicates.

The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside (the designers said so, several times), and when courtesy is enforced by a physical stripe it just goes wrong. Courtesy depends on the situation at the place, time, and traffic, and cannot be enforced by a permanent stripe.

Around 5,000 people are killed every year because of the improper lane positioning. Inattentional blindness cause cars stride from their lanes and kill pedestrians. We need to get rid of sidewalks to save peoples lives.

I wrote: "The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside"

To which CTAC replied:

Originally Posted by CTAC

What's wrong with that?

The trouble should be obvious. When the stripe is painted on the road, it applies to all cyclists, be they competent or not. It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact. Its psychological force dissuades the development of cycling competence. Its psychological force persuades motorists that cyclists don't belong on the normal roadway, are not drivers of vehicles. It's punishing everybody for the unlawful behavior of some, instead of trying to produce the understanding of proper behavior.

I understand that you think that you are being sarcastic. And I also thoroughly dislike your argument that "historical context is a critical argument in all forms of bigotry" applies to this discussion. And your sarcasm that since "the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change" just shows your ignorance of history. The bicycle was invented by people who knew exactly what they wanted: a vehicle faster than walking and cheaper than horses. The miracle is they outdid horses in both economy and speed.

For your supposed sarcasm to be actual sarcasm, you have to demonstrate that the facts have changed. Bike lanes were designed by motorists to shove bicycle traffic to the side of the road out of the way of motorists. The facts have not changed: bike lanes keep cyclists to the side of the road out of motorists' way. So that invalidates your supposed sarcasm.What do you say?

Headline news: John Forster gets top national experts to meet to find ways to shove cyclists into the way of motorists.

There, is that better sarcasm? I'm just saying you can spin anything to seem highly negative.

You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by MOTORISTS.

To add validity to your spin you add original design intent that cannot ever change. That comes across as "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." I'm sorry but I am at a loss to find any sort of valid argument that is dependent on original historic design intent taht can make or break an argument. If something fails, failure under current conditions is far superior then failure in the past. The only time I see this form of argument of original intent is from a highly biased point of view.

So the original intent of bicycles comes down to how we choose our words, was the intent to create a sport that was faster then walking and cheaper then horses like skiing or was it to create a valid transportation mode that would replace the horse by first confining the sport of cycling to exclusive country clubs and space reserved solely for use by the bicycle as an ideal transportation model. It was here in exercise of sport that the engineering of the bicycle was refined so it could compete with horse as a means of travel, the design of the bicycle adapted and changed as did peoples attitude about the bicycle. Most items in this discussion have changed from their original design intent, the bicycle and paved roads created by the Good Road Movement. You argue about the "facts" in meetings with road engineers but what are the "facts" about government attitude that help convene the meetings or the "facts" about public attitudes that influenced the government? Who's attitude takes precedent for the "intent" of the outcome? The facts are such that they are so many facts anyone can spin them to whatever their agenda is. Bicycles have a dual sport/transportation intent, public roads/bike lanes have a dual accommodating cyclists/motorist intent. To cite "facts" that spin this one way or the other denies other "facts" about the other way. The balance between two intents or public perception (which is what we really are concerned about) changes over time and that is the "facts."

I wrote: "The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside"

To which CTAC replied:

The trouble should be obvious. When the stripe is painted on the road, it applies to all cyclists, be they competent or not. It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact. Its psychological force dissuades the development of cycling competence. Its psychological force persuades motorists that cyclists don't belong on the normal roadway, are not drivers of vehicles. It's punishing everybody for the unlawful behavior of some, instead of trying to produce the understanding of proper behavior.

please try to remain on topic.

if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?

Conversely, if we aren't going to provide bike lanes, shouldn't we also remove the freeways and sidewalks?

Well designed bike lane networks largely assume and treat bicyclists as lawful and competent users of the road.

Your argument is rather silly because it assumes the impossible. It is practically impossible to have a well-designed bike lane network that does treat bicyclists as lawful and competent users of the road. If it were designed so that it never contradicted the rules of the road, so little of it would exist that one could not call it a network.

Headline news: John Forster gets top national experts to meet to find ways to shove cyclists into the way of motorists.

There, is that better sarcasm? I'm just saying you can spin anything to seem highly negative.

You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by MOTORISTS.

To add validity to your spin you add original design intent that cannot ever change. That comes across as "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." I'm sorry but I am at a loss to find any sort of valid argument that is dependent on original historic design intent taht can make or break an argument. If something fails, failure under current conditions is far superior then failure in the past. The only time I see this form of argument of original intent is from a highly biased point of view.

So the original intent of bicycles comes down to how we choose our words, was the intent to create a sport that was faster then walking and cheaper then horses like skiing or was it to create a valid transportation mode that would replace the horse by first confining the sport of cycling to exclusive country clubs and space reserved solely for use by the bicycle as an ideal transportation model. It was here in exercise of sport that the engineering of the bicycle was refined so it could compete with horse as a means of travel, the design of the bicycle adapted and changed as did peoples attitude about the bicycle. Most items in this discussion have changed from their original design intent, the bicycle and paved roads created by the Good Road Movement. You argue about the "facts" in meetings with road engineers but what are the "facts" about government attitude that help convene the meetings or the "facts" about public attitudes that influenced the government? Who's attitude takes precedent for the "intent" of the outcome? The facts are such that they are so many facts anyone can spin them to whatever their agenda is. Bicycles have a dual sport/transportation intent, public roads/bike lanes have a dual accommodating cyclists/motorist intent. To cite "facts" that spin this one way or the other denies other "facts" about the other way. The balance between two intents or public perception (which is what we really are concerned about) changes over time and that is the "facts."

You keep repeating that the bicycle was invented to create the as then unimagined sport of cycling, despite my telling you of the truth of the matter. Your persistence in repeating error simply shows the strength of prejudices. Inventing the bicycle to create some sport that was undreamed of at that time? Ludicrous, that is.

However, more to the point. You argue that original design intent can change over time. It cannot, because it is a historical fact. Anyway, the point I was arguing was the consistency in function over time. The original bike lane designers designed a system to push cyclists to the side of the road. They succeeded in producing that result. Because the system has not had significant redesign, it still does that. You admit as much, only you now call it separation.

I consider your argument using separation, as you call it. "You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by MOTORISTS." In that you are entirely wrong. WOLs allow motorists the space to overtake cyclists without delay, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but without imposing any separation that contradicts the rules of the road and applies a stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road. WOLs provide sufficient space, without generating any other complication. That is their virtue. The same goes for shoulders, because there is no implication that cyclists should be limited to shoulders.

One would think that these matters are readily understandable. That they are not, for many people, demonstrates the obduracy of unthinking prejudices.

When the stripe is painted on the road, it applies to all cyclists, be they competent or not. It assumes that all cyclists should be treated as unlawfully incompetent regardless of fact.

Dude, that the idea behind all road markings. Competent drivers do not need any lanes, they would drive perfectly fine without them on a multilane highway, stop where stop line is supposed to be, and park their cars without stall lines at a mall in an orderly fashion.

Originally Posted by John Forester

Its psychological force dissuades the development of cycling competence. Its psychological force persuades motorists that cyclists don't belong on the normal roadway, are not drivers of vehicles. It's punishing everybody for the unlawful behavior of some, instead of trying to produce the understanding of proper behavior.

I used to share that opinion, but since I wrapped my helmet with tin foil it helped a lot.

Dude, that the idea behind all road markings. Competent drivers do not need any lanes, they would drive perfectly fine without them on a multilane highway, stop where stop line is supposed to be, and park their cars without stall lines at a mall in an orderly fashion.

I used to share that opinion, but since I wrapped my helmet with tin foil it helped a lot.

There is a great deal of difference between normal lane stripes, which simply allow drivers to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the bike-lane stripe, which distinguishes between one type of driver and another type of driver, with the result of sometimes contradicting the rules of the road.

There is a great deal of difference between normal lane stripes, which simply allow drivers to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the bike-lane stripe, which distinguishes between one type of driver and another type of driver, with the result of sometimes contradicting the rules of the road.

I know that you do not ride bicycle much, but if you drive a car you should have seen many examples of the same markings that has no relation to bicycles. Carpool lanes, passing lanes, turnovers, bus lanes. All of them are designed to separate different kind of traffic.

I know that you do not ride bicycle much, but if you drive a car you should have seen many examples of the same markings that has no relation to bicycles. Carpool lanes, passing lanes, turnovers, bus lanes. All of them are designed to separate different kind of traffic.

None of these examples with some exceptions for bus lanes, violate the rules of the road, in fact they mostly enhance/support them.

Carpool - faster traffic left, no turning conflicts
Passing - slower traffic right, right turns (if they exist) are made my all types of vehicles from that lane.

Are HOV or bus-only lanes properly destination positioned for all moves?

Of course not, but it has never been argued that there is a safety imperative in obeying those lanes, as is the case for bike lanes. The lanes that you mentioned are no more than conveniences, to be used or not as works out best. That is not the case for bike lanes, for which the safety imperative enforced by laws is the dominant opinion.

Go back to the library and read the literature before sounding off again.

why don't you humble yourself and offer to help design better bike lanes and paths, John? That would actually be a useful contribution.

bike lanes can have better destination positioning if done right, and paths can be done better too with careful route selection and selective use of grade eliminations and other treatments. The money might actually be out there in the near future to do it better.

fact that the bicycle was designed to be a toy and that can never change

Really? I'd be interested in an original source citation about the motivations of Drais de Sauerbrun, or any other early pioneers.

It seems to be that non-velocipedists tried (consciously or otherwise) to denigrate those machines by likening them to the children's toy "hobbyhorse" (just a stick with a horse's head) but that seems to be par for the course for the non-cycling public and not any indication of a lack of practicality on the part of the creators and developers.